i put forth that transpency does not exist - especially in any form that involves money

a) it cant - the profit/cost is hidden
b) you cant talk about upcoming features/what your about to sell (fully)

I read an article/review in the Star today about Credability in rockstars.

Its was about a book that studies the aultruistic side of rock... from elvis - to anarchy credability (pistols) to neil young to sting to kurt cobain etc

as an example it said neil young cant be credible - as he did 80's album running his music through synths - and pretending to be in strange rockability or blues bands = no cred. or no transparency

same for sting... elvis .. they all "sold out"

some subjects / artists they wouldnt touch - like dylan: "he new at an early age the difference between credibility and reality.."

and they conclude the article by stating Kurt cobain was the only real credible artist - as he expossed himself though his writing more turely and honestly (transparently) than any other artist - for the world to see - and - shot himself due to some extent
of that watching.

<church lady> now isnt that just specail

so anyway - real - true transparency - cannot exit
and if it did - it can be fatal to the individual or business that pays more than just lip service to it

What you call 'selling out' I call experiementation. Artist dont want to release another Nevermind or Blue Seude shoes. Money usually not an issue for the ones that have the option to do whatever they want. They want to explore new ideas and experiment.
Add a new piece to their repritroe thats new,

Honestly when artists hear comments like the originail posters. They say to themseleves well why don't you put out an albulm thats sells thousands or milllions. What makes you such an expert is their question.

I look at a band like Queen for example. Very prolific they usually released an album a year. Each one is totally different. They had experimentation albums like Hot Space, The Game and The Miracle. But they were not selling out. They were experimenting with
their sound.

In two words: being Artists.

Whether an artist is writing about his her self in their music is not important to me. I don't know bout you but I look more at whether they are good. Not how much I know about their personal life, how honest they are with their fans, or anything else that
really has nothing to do with their music.

I like queen. they somewhat invented hip hop minimalizm with Another one bites the dust (voted best - and worst song of that year if i remember correctly)

still though - you see the Clash - Should i stay or should i go - in a commercial for cold medicine... eesh = money. or johnny lydon with the "take the money" tour or whatever.. its still "selling out" even if they make fun of it

How about Translucency? You can see through it, but the image is slightly distorted.

How transparent does a company have to be before they're truly transparent? I mean, I don't know what my brother and sister do on a daily basis, so at what point do you say "that's a tranparent company."

What I want from C9 is relatively unfiltered explanations of cool new techs coming out of MS, and why certain decisions went certain ways. (It's interesting to hear, for example, why Windows Home Server doesn't do the things it doesn't do.)

That's all the transparency I want, if they've got some secret stuff they don't want to talk about, that's fine, so do I.

On the other hand I'm not going to pretend that just because the Devs and PMs at MS are trying to make the best product they can, that I should trust MS completely. I can realise there's stuff I don't and won't know about how the company operates, and that's
fine. Like I said, there's stuff about my family I don't know.

odujosh wrote:
I look at a band like Queen for example. Very prolific they usually released an album a year. Each one is totally different.

Your definition of "totally different" is clearly very different from mine!

You mean you never heard the experimental trance/opera album?

3.5 hours of one note, played on Goat, Yak, Yurt and VW Beetle.

Brian May trained for years to be able to play the Yak, it's all in the breath control apparantly. And Mercury's virtuoso performance on the Yurt had me in a coma for three weeks.

Rolling Stone described it as: "The most astonishingly genre-defying album of the decade."
Q said it was: "Agonisingly superfluous, repleat with rich nuance and emotional depth."
NME said it was: "Crap."

odujosh wrote:
I look at a band like Queen for example. Very prolific they usually released an album a year. Each one is totally different.

Your definition of "totally different" is clearly very different from mine!

You mean you never heard the experimental trance/opera album?

3.5 hours of one note, played on Goat, Yak, Yurt and VW Beetle.

Brian May trained for years to be able to play the Yak, it's all in the breath control apparantly. And Mercury's virtuoso performance on the Yurt had me in a coma for three weeks.

Rolling Stone described it as: "The most astonishingly genre-defying album of the decade."
Q said it was: "Agonisingly superfluous, repleat with rich nuance and emotional depth."
NME said it was: "Crap."

Come on? You never heard it?

lol

but then they did "i want to break free" video vacumming the house in drag... oops - thats real.. nevermind

Oh great, Jamie is reading again. filling his mind with ideas. and now mine
You make some interesting points.
Do you think if something is absolutly transparent it might have the potential to change the very thing being looked at? isnt that kind of scary?

Thread Closed

This thread is kinda stale and has been closed but if you'd like to continue the conversation,
please create a new thread in our Forums, or
Contact Us and let us know.